Kerala High Court
Chandrasekharan vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2024
Author: K.Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2024:KER:86786
1
Crl.A No.2083 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA,
1946
CRL.A NO. 2083 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1355/2024 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2024 IN CRMP NO.6240
OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHANDRASEKHARAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. O. VELAYUDAN NAIR, KOORIKKAL HOUSE,
MADATHUMPADI DESOM, MADATHUMPADI VILLAGE,
KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680733
BY ADVS.
NANDITHA S.
P.M.RAFIQ
M.REVIKRISHNAN
AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RAHUL SUNIL
SRUTHY K.K
SOHAIL AHAMMED HARRIS P.P.
AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY
2024:KER:86786
2
Crl.A No.2083 of 2024
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXX
XXXX
BY ADV
SRI.JAYAPRASAD M R
SMT.NIMA JACOB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:86786
3
Crl.A No.2083 of 2024
K.BABU, J.
--------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No.2083 of 2024
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 26.10.2024 in
Crl.M.P No.6240/2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-I,
Thrissur.
2. The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.1355/2024 of
Kodungallur Police Station. He is alleged to have committed the
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(a)(f)(n), 376(3), 354,
354(A)(1)(i)(ii)(iii), 354(B), 354(D)(ii) and 363 of the IPC, Sections 4(1)
r/w Section (3)(a)(c), 6(1) r/w Section 5(a)(ii)(iii)(iv), 5(l)(k)(p), 10 r/w
Section 9(a)(ii)(iii)(iv), 9(c)(l)(p), 12 r/w Section 11(iv) of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v)
2024:KER:86786
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The prosecution case
3. The appellant is not a member of scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe. The victim is a member of scheduled caste. The
appellant is a police officer working as SPC Instructor. The victim
is a 14 year-old student studying at GVHSS, Puthanchira. The
appellant was entrusted with the responsibility to train the students
of the school in the SPC course. The appellant seduced the victim
by maintaining relationship over mobile phone. By offering birthday
treat, on 14.11.2022, he took her to a house near Cheraman mosque,
Kodungallur. He committed aggravated penetrative sexual
assault on her.
4. The appellant was arrested on 26.09.2024. He has been in
judicial custody since then.
5. The appellant filed an application seeking regular bail
before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. The learned
2024:KER:86786
Sessions Judge dismissed the application as per the impugned
order.
6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the victim and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted
that the appellant is innocent and he has not committed the
offences as alleged. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted
that as the investigation is over further detention of the appellant is
not required.
8. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the delay in the
lodging of FIS points to the chance of false implication.
9. The learned counsel for the victim opposed the bail plea of
the appellant on the ground that the offences alleged are grave.
The learned counsel submitted that the victim revealed the incident
to the Counsellor at the school.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the
2024:KER:86786
application seeking regular bail.
11. The incident happened on Children's day. The victim is a 14
year-old student undergoing training under the appellant in the
SPC course. The appellant was SPC Drill Instructor in the school
where the victim is studying. A woman police constable attached to
Thrissur Rural Vanitha Police Station recorded the statement of the
victim wherein she had raised specific allegations of rape against
the appellant.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Police
submitted the charge sheet on 05.11.2024.
13. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the
basis of well-settled principles having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken
into consideration while dealing with application for bail:
(i) The nature of the accusation and the
severity of the punishment in the case of
conviction and the nature of the materials
2024:KER:86786
relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witnesses or apprehension of threat to
the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) Reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the time of trial
or the likelihood of his fleeing from justice;
(iv) Character, behaviour and standing of the
accused and the circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused;
(v) Larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations.
14. There is no hard and fast rule regarding granting or
refusing bail. Each case has to be considered on the relevant facts
and circumstances and on its own merits. The discretion of the
court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary
manner.
2024:KER:86786
15. In serious offences, the courts should not lightly entertain
the bail application when there is a prima facie case. Where the
offence complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of
the public, bail shall not be granted. Bail is a rule, and jail is an
exception, but the accused involved in offences, which are grave,
serious and heinous, fall within the exception and not the rule.
16. While the court cannot ignore the fundamental right of the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, it cannot shut its eyes
totally to the atrocious nature of the offence committed. Ultimately,
it is a question of harmonizing the two situations and finding the
course to be adopted to see that justice is done to both parties.
17. I have perused the case diary and the report submitted by
the Investigating Officer. The material placed by the prosecution
would reveal that the appellant is alleged to have committed
heinous offences. The prosecution has established a prima facie
case.
18. Having considered the entire circumstances, I am of the
2024:KER:86786
view that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail. The
Criminal Appeal lacks merits, and it stands dismissed.
It is made clear that the appellant is at liberty to seek bail on
changed circumstances.
Sd/-
K.BABU,
JUDGE
KAS
